The Union-Tribune editorial board recently interviewed U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead. The following are edited and condensed excerpts.

Question: The most recent Defense Review Panel report said the United States is inadequately preparing for the threats of the future, particularly in Asia, and that the United States is losing its ability to project force around the world. At the same time, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is proposing to cut $100 billion from the defense budget over five years. From the Navy’s viewpoint, how do you square those and how do you meet both objectives?

Answer: I think the significant part about what Secretary Gates has put on the table and what we have executed is not necessarily a cut of the defense budget but rather taking a look at our budget and then challenging the services to reinvest or realign. I welcome that. And for the Navy it’s important because we’re heavily involved ashore in the Middle East, in Iraq, Afghanistan. We have 14,500 sailors ashore, more than the about 10,000 we have at sea. Many of those sailors ashore come from San Diego and commands around San Diego. That’s about the same amount of sailors that we have committed to the fight as the Marine Corps has committed to the fight. That said, we still believe that because of our global interests, the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean/Arabian Gulf region require continued attention and continued presence and that we in the Navy are the force that best provides that presence and that attention. And we’ve stayed true to that even as we’re dealing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what we have been able to do is to take that opportunity for realignment and reinvestment and address some of the structure issues and capability issues that allow us to, I think, better provide that presence and better provide the nation with options in those important parts of the world.

Q: Tell me a little bit about what the sailors on the ground are doing. Are they fighting alongside with Marines or doing support roles?

A: All of the above. Some of our forces are close to the Marines. For example, our Navy corpsmen are the medics for the Marine Corps. And they are also some of our most decorated sailors that we have because they’re in the fight and their relationship with the Marines is extraordinary. Our construction battalions are in great demand because our combat engineers are really some of the best in the business. We have a lot of medical people and logistics people who are there. But we also have individuals who are there to augment intelligence, the base infrastructure and the running of the bases that are over there. We have sailors who – not in Iraq anymore, but we did and we’re still doing it in Afghanistan – who perform duties within some of the detention facilities.

Q: Secretary Gates has also said that he does not want the Marine Corps to be a second land army. We’ve got a Navy. We’ve got our Army. If he doesn’t want the Marines to be a second land army, where do they fit in?

A: I think they fit in exactly into the future that I think we’re going to be dealing with. We will continue to see areas of disorder in the world, areas where the U.S. has interests, where the U.S. will want to have a presence, where the U.S. will want to influence events that are favorable to us. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s always going to be combat operations but presence in itself can be a shaping force for a particular outcome. But the sensitivity with regard to sovereignty by nations is only going to become more acute. And the idea of responding and having to put foreign forces on someone else’s soil will become a more sensitive issue. And what the Navy and Marine Corps bring is the ability to have that force mobile, to be able to move it quickly and agilely and to remain offshore. And I think that’s going to become extraordinarily important.

Q: There seems to be a process in place for the elimination at some point of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. What do you see as a practical timetable for that and its impact on the Navy?

A: We have set in place a process with regard to the potential repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” And I’m sure you’ve heard several people who wear the uniform say that it’s a decision that really is in the hands of the Congress of the United States. And so what we have done and what I think is so very important is to get through the assessment period, if you will, not just for those who serve but also for our families because our organizations, our services, are much more family-centered than they were when I started. The reason the assessment is important for me – my sailors participating in it and sharing their thoughts, their views, their opinions – is that we have never asked our force what this means to them. We can read that, you know, navies, and you pick a country, have changed the policy and allowed the service of homosexuals. We can look at polls about what the country believes. But the demographic that’s in the military is a bit different than the national demographic and it clearly is a different demographic than what may exist in some country in Europe. We are just a different culture. We see things differently. And this is the first opportunity we have had to have this conversation. And it’s appropriate that we did not have it before because I don’t believe that it’s a role of the military for us to say, you know, to all my sailors, “Hey, here’s a law. Do you guys like it or not?” That’s not what you want in your military. We obey the laws of the land and there’s no question in my mind that if this law changes then we will obey the law of the land and our sailors will be professional and they will be considerate and they will treat people with dignity.

Q: And are you supportive of that change?

A: I am supportive of going through this process that we have put in place and I am very eager to hear from my sailors and their families. And then from that I will be able to provide the type of advice that is my obligation to provide.

Q: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a law which made it a crime for people to wear military medals that they hadn’t earned. A lot of folks in this community think that’s an outrageous affront to the veterans who really served and they don’t understand the logic of the judge who said there’s no evidence that falsely wearing medals is injurious to someone and should be seen as a crime. Is that something you have an opinion on?

A: I’m not a veteran that lives in San Diego, but you can associate me with the veterans that live in San Diego. I believe that the awards that our young men and women receive for the service that they perform for their country are badges of honor. And it’s not just a medal that may be given for heroism or valor. Young men and women come into the Navy and they do things that are pretty extraordinary. And they serve in places and they go do things and they separate themselves from their families and they make sacrifices in their personal and sometimes in their professional lives. And what our young men and women have as a story that tells that is what they wear on their chest. And I think that that is something that should be displayed and treasured as a matter of honor. And I feel that way about it. And if I’m in a different place than the judge, I am. But I really do believe that what we wear on our chest talks about what we did for our country.